john

Sure np https://soundcloud.com/songstuff-community

* Brand New Opportunity * Not to be missed! Are you interested in free publicity as a lyricist, songwriter or band? Rack up 10 genuine posts on our forums (not one liners!) each week and you can submit a maximum of one picture, the lyrics for one song, one song recording and one video, to be considered by our site crew. Each member of our site crew can then select their favourites from your submissions on a weekly basis! Those selected will be featured on Songstuff, in our newsletters and on our various music portals (Facebook, Twitter, Google+, YouTube, SoundCloud etc) For lyrics, recordings or videos, go here: http://forums.songstuff.com/topic/34432-get-your-music-or-lyrics-featured-on-songstuff/ For press or publicity pics, go here: http://forums.songstuff.com/topic/34431-post-your-press-and-publicity-pics/

Hi and welcome to Songstuff Kerri!

Nup, um genuine howdie hello kinda person lol

Hi gang Here's the deal... If you post up your best, most fun, most excellent press and publicity pics, the Site Crew will regularly select their favourites to feature on Songstuff, it's portals and newsletters. Free publicity? You can't knock it! Just reply, attaching your pic, please also include your artist name and a link to your main artist page! Only one pic can be submitted, per member, per week. YOU MUST HAVE MADE 10 POST THAT WEEK ON OUR FORUMS. ONE LINERS DON'T COUNT One thing... If you don't post it, we can't feature it! Cheers John

Hi and welcome to Songstuff Styles Songstuff Is the site's real name be sure to follow the Songstuff SoundCloud page. It's a pretty new addition to our other portals.

It's true. Many don't bother asking. In an industry that has been hit immensely hard by piracy and BS misinfo that covers the web about the music industry, from the cost of making a cd to the justification being a strike at the big 4 labels, making money is important like it never was before. The industry is a shadow of it's former self. The good news for you is that in being pleasantly surprised they will be pleased to work with you rather than against you. Goodwill can go a long way.

You can see why I was saying you should be careful. It isn't surprising. It is typical of an after the fact award, usually because a court case can, and often does, include damages. I wonder how much Oasis paid in damages overall? This was hardly an isolated case of, um borrowing lol As far as the publisher goes, if using their melody was so crucial, they believe it is worth paying for. Rightly or wrongly. If not, I am sure they would argue that you could have written your own melody for nothing. While it is good that you have permission of the remixer, it still comes down to how similar it is to the original. If your song ONLY borrows from the remixer's melodies and arrangement, you may well get away with it as your song has borrowed from the original compositions of the remixer. In terms of the modarchive.org license, yep, kinda similar to what we have here regarding copyright. We have both a legal language and plain language explanation in ours, though it needs updated. Without it we couldn't have uploads, or in fact text posts as to show someone else your words, legally we would need your permission... Specifically on their license, I am afraid it is wishful thinking on behalf of games developers wanting free music... The first, general point I would make is the license to redistribute mentions that the song must remain unmodified and be unbundled. As soon as you place it inside a game it is "bundled". Additionally, the FAQ explicitly states, reguarding the right to distribute / redistribute "This does not cover inclusion in a packed/bundled application or game." This just clarifies what the upload license already spells out. It's a pity the games developers didn't read the FAQs. Worthy of note is that it states to be fair to the composers, they should be contacted directly regarding permissions. However.... I would argue that the remixer didn't have permission, as the song he uploaded was not wholly original. It incorporated work that he did not have permission to use, which therefor he broke the modarchive forum rules in doing so. ie either the work was misrepresented as being wholly original or he was claiming to have permission of the copyright holder to redistribute the work. There really isn't a middle ground. So any permissions he granted via that license would not apply. Is what you are wanting to use directly taken (melody, words) from the original song, or a direct lift from the original recording, or wholly taken from original composition elements of the remix or is it a mix? If the latter, then it may as well be the original song/recording.

A little defensive there. I'm just trying to help. Sounds like you have already decided and I have given you the answer you didn't want to hear. lol There is what you should do, and what you could do. There is a difference between "influenced by" and "using bits from" or "directly lifting". I don't know about shakermaker in particular, or any deals done behind the scenes, I don't know if they got permission or not, or settled it in court later. Do you know? If it was that obvious I am sure Coca Cola will have been paid at some point. Pop music is littered with songs where artists didn't get permission but instead went ahead and released a song. And then got sued.And lost. As a non-commercial release, could you get away with doing a cover? Possibly, but you better be absolutely sure there are no commercial elements (even YouTube advertising, google asense etc.) and that you are prepared to be sued whether it is a commercial release or not. While many labels and publishers will look leniently on non-commercial covers, not all will. Pretty well none will look favourably on a strongly similar song presenting itself as an original, that is considered plagiarism and generally slammed, commercial or not. From the level of detail you know about the remix tracker's permissions I am guessing you have asked him? Just because this tracker hasn't been sued doesn't mean he won't be. The point is, why would you not ask permission? It's easy enough to do. If you are doing a commercial release it is better to be completely up front. If you are doing a non-commercial release most are quite accommodating. - the original is a pop song (from a permissions perspective it is completely irrelevent) - the remix is a tracker tune made purely on a computer. It doesn't contain any actual samples from the orignal. (are you?) - the melody, chords, and beat are similar or very similar, but still distinct. (How distinct? There is a measureable formula, plus it comes down to a jury. Additionally chords and beat don't count from a song copyright perspective, though they can count from an arrangement perspective. From a song perspective, the melody and lyrics are the important part.) - the original has lyrics, the remix doesn't. (does yours, are they the same/similar?) - the use of remix would be as background music to a computer game. This is a distinctly different use from what the original music was made for. (doesn't matter from a permission perspective) - the computer game is a small scale commericial release (Ahhhhhh! The scale doesn't matter. If the publisher finds out and consider it to be very similar... they could sue you. So much so that it takes your game off the shelves, and they could claw back moneys, whether you made a profit or not. beacause any publisher will want a share of a commercial release of ANY kind if THEY consider YOUR song is similar.) Going by the last bit, you better be very sure that your song is measurably different. In a legal sense. Additionally, if I were you I would be wanting written permission from the tracker if what you do is borrowing in any way from his work. Otherwise he could be flat broke and aware that your game has become very successful, or your software company has, even years later, and then he could think.... why not and engage a lawyer. It has happened many times in the pop industry and in the gaming and other industries. Same goes for publishers, labels and artists. ie they can decide at any point if they discover it and deem it to be similar enough.... hence me saying you better be very sure of how similar it is legally. Even tough you haven't named the track, I doubt it would be too hard for them to prove that you have had exposure to the track or remix. I am not trying to be a pain in the ass, or rain on your parade. I am trying to help. You asked a question and I answered with what I consider to be the correct answer. I am not a lawyer. My answer is not definitive. If you are serious, consult an entertainments lawyer.